People v. Machus, 80.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 80.,80.
• Citation: 32 N.W.2d 480,321 Mich. 353
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MACHUS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

321 Mich. 353

32 N.W.2d 480

PEOPLE

v.MACHUS.

No. 80.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 18, 1948.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Paul E. Krause, judge.

Anthony Machus was charged by information with the crime of murder. From an order denying defendant's motion to set aside his sentence and allow him to withdraw plea of guilty, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and James N. McNally, Pros. Atty. in and for Wayne County, Robert Newton Smiley, and Herbert Burdick, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.

George A. Beauchamp, of Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

BOYLES, Justice.

On leave granted, the defendant appeals from an order entered in the recorder's court for Detroit denying a motion to set aside his sentence and allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty to the crime of murder.

The information on which the plea of guilty was entered charges that the defendants ‘feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought, did kill and murder one Casimir Kliszewski; contrary to the form of the statute,’ et cetera. It does not specify the degree of the murder, nor does it specify the manner, method, means or circumstances attending the alleged crime. The defendant on his plea of guilty was sentenced to life imprisonment in State prison. No witnesses were sworn and no testimony was taken to determine the degree of the crime.

In People v. Martin, 316 Mich. 669, 26 N.W.2d 558, this Court has recently held that under the above circumstances the sentence is invalid. The statute¹ requiring the court to examine witnesses to determine the degree of the crime, under the above circumstances, is mandatory; and the fact that this defendant later in the subsequent examination of a codefendant testified to the manner and means whereby the crime was perpetrated does not constitute an exception to the requirement of the statute or cure the failure to comply with it.

Appellee refers to People v. Grillo, 319 Mich. 586, 30 N.W.2d 284, where the defendant, charged with murder, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced therefor. It was held that there was no necessity to examine witnesses to determine the degree of the crime. Obviously the circuit judge, having accepted the plea of guilty of second-degree murder, was under no compulsion to take testimony to show whether the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder; and it was held that manslaughter is not a degree of the crime of murder. The Grillo case does not control here. In the case at bar the sentence is invalid and must be set aside.

Appellee relies on People v. Furkas, 255 Mich. 533, 238 N.W. 173, 174, and claims that it would be ‘a gross travesty of justice’ to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of...